RomanArmyTalk

Full Version: Legatus of Caesar\'s Tenth
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
After Titus Labienus left Caesar to fight with Pompey, who would have been the legatus of the 10th Legion? Gaius Crastinus, the primus pilus, was called out of retirement, which he had only just begun, and we find him fighting valiantly, and dying cruelly, at Pharsalus. I can find nothing, though, that suggests he went above the rank of centurion.

Thanks!
At this date, legati were appointed to legions at the start of each campaign season, so legions did not have fixed commanders. Labienus certainly commanded the tenth for a period, but they would have have other legates too. I don't think Caesar mentions any other names though. There is an interesting note in Appian (Civil Wars) that the tenth had been 'commanded in the past by M Antonius' - so it would appear that he was one of their legates, presumably late in the Gallic Wars or the early civil wars, after the departure of Labienus.

The structure for extending the careers of primus pilus centurions didn't really exist at this date, as far as we know - there was an allegation that Caesar had promoted centurions to the senate, but generally a former primus pilus would either reenlist as an evocatus or as a principales centurion again, or retire. Crastinus, had he survived, would not have moved up to a command position, if that was what you were asking.
Nathan...huge help! Thanks! I did not think there was a reference to anyone else, but it is interesting to think of Antony in command of the 10th. Do you have the citation in Appian?

I am presenting the person of Crastinus at a high school Latin convention next month from a perspective of just before Pharsalus, and I wanted to be able to mention a legion commander by name if possible.
Quote:Do you have the citation in Appian?
Appian, Civil Wars, Book III, 83

"The Tenth legion, recruited from non-Italians and led in the past by Antonius, prepared the way for him within the camp."

Note - this is the Mackenzie Carter 1996 translation. The 1913 Loeb version, often found on the web, translates this passage as saying that the tenth were founded by Antonius. This is clearly wrong, and Carter's version might therefore seem preferable. What he means by 'recruited from non-Italians' is a bit mysterious and perhaps faulty, but discussed in this thread.

- Nathan
Again, huge help! Thanks so much!
Quote:What he means by 'recruited from non-Italians' is a bit mysterious and perhaps faulty, but discussed in this thread.

Nathan! Not 'perhaps faulty', but very, very faulty Smile The Appian reference is B.C. 3.83, and the key word (ἐξεναγημένον) means 'commanded'. It just so happens that two translators have tripped up over it! At the time, the 10th was under Lepidus' command.

However it's worth noting that each legion did not necessarily have a legate in command of it - even one only appointed at the start of the campaign season or ad hoc. The idea of a legatus legionis (a legate in permanent command of a single legion - in effect the CO of a legion) is generally considered to have developed in the Augustan era, although there are earlier precedents. In the absence of a specific legion commander - who would generally be assigned the role for a specific purpose, say to gather supplies - the legion would have been under the authority of whoever commanded the entire army. For day-to-day purposes the military tribunes would have run it (the two in charge that month, presumably).

In other words, Antonius might have commanded the 10th, but he may well have done so as part of a two or three legion vexhillation - rather than as the 10th's dedicated legate. Put even more simply, the 10th probably didn't have one Smile

blue skies

Tom
Tom, do you have a source for Lepidus' connection with the 10th?

Steve
I only have scratch notes with me, so I'm not entirely sure, but I think that the 10th is under Plancius (as proconsul in Gallia Comata) in April 43: Cicero ad fam 10.11.2. Plancius, however, was unsure that he could control it. It was probably under Lepidus' control by late May when Lepidus and Antonius merged (c.f. Schmitthenner (1958) 35ff.), as Appian BC 3.83 implies that the 10th were already in Lepidus' camp.

blue skies

Tom
The tenth had been disbanded in 45BC, and the veterans settled on land around Narbo. In the year following Caesar's death, Lepidus was governor of Transalpine Gaul and Plancus of Gallia Comata, as Tom says. The first reference to the tenth, however, comes from Plancus, in the letter to Cicero mentioned by Tom above. Antony at this point was in retreat after Mutina, and was crossing the Alps into Gaul. Both Plancus and Lepidus were supposedly supporting the senate against him:

...if he (Antonius) brings some of his forces with him, and if the tenth veteran legion, which, having been recalled to its duty by my exertion, and is now with the others, relapses into its old mad conduct, nevertheless I will do my best to prevent any loss; and I hope I shall prevent it, provided that forces from Rome are sent across, and by forming a junction with me find it easier to crush these abandoned men. (Cicero Ad.fam IIII)

This is an odd situation - why would the governor of Gallia Comata claim that he had reenlisted men in Gallia Transalpina? The letter does imply, however, that Plancus himself was not commanding the tenth at this time. I think this might just be Plancus puffing himself up: his 'exertion' being to persuade Lepidus to recall the veteran soldiers (it being his jurisdiction, after all). Notice that he requests 'forces from Rome' be sent to join him rather than Lepidus, who had more obvious need of reinforcement. Perhaps Plancus already suspected that Lepidus was about to change sides (as he soon did, after the persuasions of his own troops!) and wanted to make sure that he himself was not left facing the Antonians with only a small force.

In other words, this is a bit of political bluster. The tenth were most probably reenlisted by Governor Lepidus himself, from their homes around Narbo. Very soon, afterwards, of course, they welcomed their 'enemy' Antony into the camp and forced Lepidus to change sides and declare against the senate (Appian, my ref above). Fascinating times.
Quote:I think this might just be Plancus puffing himself up: his 'exertion' being to persuade Lepidus to recall the veteran soldiers (it being his jurisdiction, after all).
Now that would, just about, fit. If it happened in his province, then he could claim the credit. It would depend where the 10th were re-levied from (isn't Narbonensis itself under Lepidus?).

He may also have been involved in retraining/equipping/disciplining the legion - this would have been a task in itself. It might just make sense if the 10th was resurrected and then posted for a time to Gallia Comata to ensure that it behaved itself - there's an awful lot of juggling of forces in Gaul during the period.

Quote:In other words, this is a bit of political bluster...

This seems like a better solution!

1) I can't see why Lepidus would re-enlist the veteran 10th - or allow it to be re-enlisted in his own province - without keeping it under his command.

2) Given the context of Plancus' letter in ad fam 10.11, Plancus would not, presumably, have voluntarily sent the 10th away to Lepidus (which he'd have to have done pretty sharply, for them to defect to Antonius in late May).

It makes more sense if Plancus is just blustering here, and trying to portray himself, rather than Lepidus, as the cornerstone of the senatorial forces in Gaul.

blue skies
Quote:
Nathan Ross Wrote:What he means by 'recruited from non-Italians' is a bit mysterious and perhaps faulty, but discussed in this thread.

Nathan! Not 'perhaps faulty', but very, very faulty Smile The Appian reference is B.C. 3.83, and the key word (ἐξεναγημένον) means 'commanded'. It just so happens that two translators have tripped up over it! At the time, the 10th was under Lepidus' command.

However it's worth noting that each legion did not necessarily have a legate in command of it - even one only appointed at the start of the campaign season or ad hoc. The idea of a legatus legionis (a legate in permanent command of a single legion - in effect the CO of a legion) is generally considered to have developed in the Augustan era, although there are earlier precedents. In the absence of a specific legion commander - who would generally be assigned the role for a specific purpose, say to gather supplies - the legion would have been under the authority of whoever commanded the entire army. For day-to-day purposes the military tribunes would have run it (the two in charge that month, presumably).

In other words, Antonius might have commanded the 10th, but he may well have done so as part of a two or three legion vexhillation - rather than as the 10th's dedicated legate. Put even more simply, the 10th probably didn't have one Smile

blue skies

Tom

M. Antonious might well have commanded 10th as he was Caesar's quaestor during late Gallic campaign and those apparently often had military duties apart from financial ones. In that he'd have definitely outranked any tribunes for job as legate, but as if he ever was "permanent" commander, who knows.